jump to navigation

Shock! Democrats for Life choose democrats instead of life October 20, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, General Catholic, scandals, Society.

Perhaps you’ve heard that an ugly Obama democrat, Steve Dreihaus of Ohio’s first congressional district, is suing the very good pro-life group Susan B. Anthony list for running ads highlighting the fact hat Dreihaus voted for abortion funding Obamacare.  He’s managed to force the pro-life ads out of his district with a court injunction.  Too bad, he’s going to lose badly, anyways.  But, as per their usual modus operandi, Democrats for Life is endorsing Dreihaus in this fight, even though Democrats for Life originally opposed Obamacare, until it was passed into law, when, all of a sudden, it’s the most pro-life piece of legislation in the history of the UNIVERSE!  Jill Stanek has the complete story here.  The turnaround would be pathetic, if it weren’t such a tired cliche by now.

I wish, I pray, there would be truly pro-life democrats.  Sadly, for the vast majority of that group, when it comes down to “support the party” vs. “support the most innocent among us,” guess which they almost invariably choose?


1. Jen R - October 20, 2010

To repeat the comment I made at Jill’s blog — the bill DfL opposed and the bill they supported were two different bills.

tantamergo - October 20, 2010

What precisely changed about the bill? The executive order? It’s worthless. No major pro-life group came out in favor of the bill, ever. The bishop’s conference and individual bishops remained opposed to the bill, in spite of the fact that they very much wanted, collectively, some form of major health care reform. They would have supported the bill without the presence of its pro-abort provisions. Already there have had to be amendments to prevent funding abortions in some states. Planned Parenthood is on a building spree, and treated the passing of Obamacare as their biggest victory since Roe v. Wade.

Sorry, doesn’t wash.

2. Jen R - October 20, 2010

No, the House bill and the Senate bill were separate pieces of legislation. The Senate bill is the one that was ultimately passed by both chambers and signed into law. It’s not the same as the House bill that Day was opposing in March 2009 unless the Stupak Amendment was added. The Senate bill had its own restrictions on abortion funding, in the form of the Nelson Amendment.

“Planned Parenthood is on a building spree, and treated the passing of Obamacare as their biggest victory since Roe v. Wade.”

As the kids say, “links or it didn’t happen.” All the abortion advocacy groups were infuriated by the abortion funding restrictions in the new law.

And of course no major pro-life group ever came out in favor of they bill — it was supported by Democrats, and they’re all Republicans.

tantamergo - October 20, 2010

And the Nelson Amendment was equally worthless in terms of keeping federal funding from abortion. That’s why Stupak wanted to add his amendment to the Senate legislation, since the senate bill was so deficient.


Building spree, planned barrenhood giddy:


Pro-life groups have no choice but to largely support Republicans because so few democrats are pro-life. That’s the way it works for all pro-lifers I know…..abortion is completely unacceptable, there is no possible way I can support a candidate who is pro-abort, and so I, and many others, are left with little choice. Even a nominally pro-life democrat is still wedded to a party that is inexorably pro-abort, pro-ESCR, pro-euthanasia in many cases, and so his pro-life views tend to get drowned out or given short shrift.

The net point is this – Democrats for Life have a present day choice -they can either continue to argue in the face of overwhelming evidence that Obamacare is “neutral” on abortion, or they can genuinely stand for life. I have no idea why they would bother to get involved in this case, anyway, the Ohio dem has little chance of winnig regardless of this signage issue. They’re re-establishing their democrat bona fides, for whatever reason.

If you’re committed to life issues and true respect for women, why are you carrying water for the dems?

Jen R - October 20, 2010

If you are going to interpret any difference of opinion as “carrying water for the Dems,” what’s the point of continued conversation?

tantamergo - October 21, 2010

OK, so you can baldly insinuate that pro-life groups are nothing but republican shills, but if I point out that you seem to be undermining your own self-proclaimed pro-life credentials by supporting democrats, that’s a conversation ender. Not the evidence that continually undermines your claims, for sure.

Actually, I think you’re on the right track, just confused, and I would argue that you should run from this notion of feminism. After all, most major public feminist leaders have stated that support for abortion is de rigueur for so self-describing. I’m all for women’s empowerment, but I just don’t think the feminish ideology, as presently construed, is a means to achieving that end, I think its a road to nothing but perpetual grievance politics and and actual surrender of power to big daddy government, the feminists chosen protector and defender.

3. FrDarryl - October 21, 2010

The term ‘Pro-life Democrat’ is rather like ‘Freezer burn’.

4. Joe - October 21, 2010

Please contact me tantamergo at joeomara4@gmail.com

Our parish here in victor ny has adopted the teachings of Tom ulrich whom you mentioned.

I need too talk with you

Regards, joe

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: